Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

Joyce Lee Malcolm references

The majority of the relevant chapter is accessible at Google Books. Having read the chapter I do not see any eveidence that Malcolc claims this as "being a transition from an obligation to a right" as the article text currently claims. Indeed quite the reverse because she scolds another historian, Roy Wetherup, for seeing a connection between the rights explicitly given in the English Bill of Rights and the term "well formed militia" when the English Bill of Rights was clearly connected to the Glorious Revolution and the preservation of protestantism in England. And she refers to the English wording as "a guarantee" - which it was - of an existing right. Later she refers to the rights of Englishmen being "refined and expanded", though rather confusingly she later says that "Since 1689 these rights included the right of Protestants to keep and use weapons" as if these rights had not existed before. As I point out in my recent edit to the article(backed by the full text of the relevant section of the English Bill of Rights instead of just part), the right was merely an explicit re-statement in statute law given by parliament and recognized by the monarchy of an ancient right to bear arms. That the statute applied explictly to Protestants has to be understood in the historical context and it did not mean that Catholics had no such rights after 1689, nor that the right in common law did not prteviously exist. I think this is merely a slip by Malcolm because most of what she says is eminently reasonable and backed by references. I therefore propose that we remove the following texts

"The right of some English subjects to possess arms was recognized under English common law; however many English subjects were not permitted by law to possess arms"

which cites Joyce but which does not seem to be supported by the reference. --Hauskalainen (talk) 16:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

On page 9[1] Professor Malcolm discusses the distinction between "a duty and a right". Prior to 1689, having weapons was a duty for certain British subjects. After the 1689 declaration of rights, it was first established as a right for Protestants, but not for Catholics. Did you read page 10[2] which describes that under 17th Century British law that the use of weapons for hunting was considered to be "a privilege" revocable by law? Clearly, according to this expert there was not an "ancient right to weapons". SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence you point to was not confirmed by reading pg 11 of the cited source, and I just tweaked the sentence to match the source and improved the reference to include a direct quote from the source. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing me to the texts on hunting. I admit that I was wrong in thinking that firearms were not restricted before the 19th century. Clearly an Act of 1671 (properly citable as "'Charles II, 1670 & 1671: An Act for the better preservation of the Game, and for secureing Warrens not inclosed, and the severall Fishings of this Realme.', Statutes of the Realm: volume 5: 1628-80 (1819), pp. 745-746") DID restrict gun possession for the purpose of preventing poaching.

"it is hereby enacted and declared That all and every person and persons, not haveing Lands and Tenements or some other Estate of Inheritance in his owne or his Wifes right of the cleare yearely value of one hundred pounds per ann? or for terme of life, or haveing Lease or Leases of ninety nine yeares or for any longer terme, of the cleare yearely value of one hundred and fifty pounds, other then the Sonne and Heire apparent of an Esquire, or other person of higher degree, and the Owners and Keepers of Forrests, Parks, Chases or Warrens, being stocked with Deere or Conies for their necessary use in respect of the said Forrests, Parks, Chases or Warrens, are hereby declared to be persons by the Lawes of this Realme, not allowed to have or keepe for themselves or any other person or persons any Guns, Bowes, Grey hounds, Setting-dogs, Ferretts, Cony-doggs, Lurchers, Hayes, Netts, Lowbells, Hare-pipes, Ginns, Snares or other Engines aforesaid, But shall be, and are hereby prohibited to have, keepe or use the same."

(Statutes of the Realm: volume 5: 1628-80 (1819), pp. 745-746. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=47447 Date accessed: 21 April 2010.)

However, this was not a restriction on the possession of arms for self defence (which I am sure remained a common law right, as it still does today) but it did without doubt restrict the availability of a particular type of arm (i.e. a gun) albeit to protect the gaming rights of the landed classes. I therefore suggest that we replace the vague notions in the text with this explicit restriction. --Hauskalainen (talk) 22:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You write "which I am sure remains a common law right". Tell us what is your sourcing for this belief. Did you get a chance to read the Malcolm book? In it she identifies prohibition on possessions of firearms (handguns) in Britain dating back to at least 1541. So clearly, it was not simply an issue of controlling hunting. SaltyBoatr (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, looking at the article, the only two references that describe a common law origin are from Stephen Halbrook[3] and David Hardy[4] who both are prominent NRA attorneys with non-neutral points of view. In our duty to keep a neutral point of view here we must be careful with balance for this type of sourcing. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The right of self defence is widely recognized in the courts though there is no LEGISLATED right of self defence. Decisions as to what is and is not lawful are decided case by case by the judges in the courts. Thus the right to use arms in self defence is part of the COMMON LAW. You have the right to defend oneself by whatever means you have available and within the limits of the law. The right has to be proportional. It is even within the law to use a FIREARM to defend oneself, though it is unlikely to happen as most people, due to the licensing laws, do not have access to firearm. Similarly it is not legal to carry a knife for the purposes of self defence but it is okay to use a knife to defend yourself if one happens tp be available. The courts in Northern Ireland have decided that it may be legal to have a gun for a legal purpose (for example to defend oneself or another another person under common law) even if there was no licence held for that gun. The absence of the licence means the breaking of the licencing laws but the gun could still legally be used for the legal purpose (i.e.one of self protection). It may seem odd that there can be strict licencing laws concerning guns yet the use of a gun (even an unlicenced gun) does not restrict the use of that gun for a legal purpose (of self defence or even defending a another). The presence of licening laws has not removed the common law right of self defence or even the right to use a firearm in self defence. BUT... to defeat a charge of murder or manslaughter you would have to assert that common law right in court (which the court could accept) but then pay the penalty for breaching any licensing laws. (The Fegan case in the reference I gave applies here). Tony Martin (farmer) overstepped the mark when he shot at intruders in his home. He had a right in common law to defend himself and his property but he was not exercising that right lawfully when he shot at an intruder who was in the process of escaping and killed him. You will find a neat summary of the law at http://www.lawteacher.net/criminal-law/cases/self-defence.php. A reading of the cases will continually refer to the right of self defence without any reference to any statute in this area. This is, by definition, the common law. --Hauskalainen (talk) 02:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

But back to the original issue... The article still quotes Malcolms as claiming that (the English Bill of Rights) was "the first instance when the customary duty to bear arms transitioned into n right to have arms for defense." I have read Malcolm and she absolutely does not say this. If Salty wants to keep this in he is gping to have to spell out exactly where she says this.--Hauskalainen (talk) 11:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The subtitle of the book is "The Origins of an Anglo-American Right"[5], key word: "origin", (not pre-existing). On the book blurb of her website she says: "This book explains how the Englishmen's hazardous duty evolved into a right." See the first sentence of page one of this book which says: "The right of citizens to be armed not only is unusual, but evolved in England in an unusual manner: it began as a duty. " You claim to have read Malcom, it is hard to understand how you missed this being on page one. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 14:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I believe I have read all the bits you pointed me to previously and nothing there seemed to show this. So it seems that Malcolm indeed write this. But she is clearly wrong. It is every man's right to defend himself. It always has been. She has got carried away by the tracing of the early references to armaments in the WRITTEN law and has ignored completely the COMMON law. If A attacks B, B is entitled to repel the attack and use whatever arms are available in a reasonable manner to stop the attack him. By your (and Joyce's reckoning) this would mean that, B would be as in the wrong as A. That is clearly nonsense and no common man, justice or jury would ever have said otherwise. I have no idea whether anyone has ever challenged the claim, but on behalf of my fellow Englishmen I do so now! The fact is that there was first a personal right (for self defense at least), then an obligation on nobles to defend the king, and then, in a fit of panic, a written law granting in perpetuity (which scholars today argue is non-constitutional because it is discriminatory and against the Charter of Fundamental Rights), certain rights to members of the protestant faith to the exclusion of all others, including the right to bear arms. The parliamentarians of the day did this only because they did not want that common law right taken away from them (which they had feared could happen). I know that you probably want believe Malcolm just because of the reference, so somehow I will have to seek to find a way to prove her wrong. Maybe I'll just write to her to see whether she will reconsider. --Hauskalainen (talk) 14:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Here, oddly enough, is Malcolm herself talking about the extent of the right to kill in self defense in relation to a case from the 1300s (See Page 24) http://books.google.com/books?id=ddaDbEIwiCUC&pg=PA342&dq=Joyce+Lee+Malcolm+-+Professor+of+History+at+Bentley+College+and+author+of+Guns+and+Violence:+The+English+Experience+-&hl=en&ei=CbPyS9zYDY_u-Qa5r7iRDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22common%20law%22&f=false. Here Malcolm seems to accept that scholars have argued that Englishman had the right to kill in self defense and not just an obligation to retreat first when acting as a peacekeeper or to defend himself, his family or his property. I think in her text she was merely ignoring the early right to use arms self defense or defending others or their property. It is interesting of course to note that even 700 years ago, there was an expectation not to revert to violence except under extreme provocation. --Hauskalainen (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

And here is an American text from the 1800s referring to every man except the priesthood being expected to be trained in the use of arms dating back to Saxon times, almost a thousand years before the Glorious Revolution. There clearly has been a right and a duty to bear arms in England for the common good at least from the very earliest part of our written history. --Hauskalainen (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

When you say "expected to be trained" that means "duty". The problem here I think is that we are not asked to personally agree with what the sources say, but we are expected to read and fairly represent what the sources say. Professor Malcolm identifies the Bill of Rights of 1689 as the first instance of a right to bear arms. The discussion of common law on pages 24-25 discusses permissible self defense, (as being permitted by the Crown) as necessary for the duty of maintaining watch and ward or the duty to respond to a hue and cry. Watch and ward, and hue and cry were duties to the Crown at that time. Permission from the Crown to do something is different than having been granted a right to do something by the Crown. Malcolm explains that it was the Revolution of 1689 that took by force the 'right' which had belonged to the Crown, (and which was subject to the permission of the Crown), and transferred that 'right' to the Protestants. The Protestants then kept the right, and did not grant permission to the Catholics. While I respect your different personal belief about this, this talk page is not the place to discuss your personal beliefs. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 17:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the issue I have is simply that Malcolm is wrong to assert that the right to bear arms evolved from an obligation because, in simple terms, there would have been a presumed right in common law that a man (or woman) would be allowed to defend themselves given the right to life of every man. This would therefore mean that there has ALWAYS been a right to bear arms long before it appeared in the English Bill of Rights. It only appeared in the Bill of Rights to PREVENT it being taken away by the act of a monarch given the fear of so-called popary. The supremacy of parliament had only just been established and its permanence had not been firmly rooted (though in practice it has never been challenged since then). The duty to defend the community was an extension but as we have another very much earlier source for this duty perhaps we should use this one rather than the Malcom one. The strange fact is that this has never been a constitutional right in English Law, and it is rather strange that this should have been lifted from an Act of Parliament in England and turned into a constitutional right in the US of A. I suppose this shows that the right of assertion of rights over a monarch were as strong in the rights of American minds as they were in the minds of the English. The English do not regard this as a constitutional right but a common law right. English case law regarding the use of arms in self defense confirms this. Even weirder is the fact that right has now moved in the US to be one of a personal right which it never was even in the English law. It was very much written as a right of Protestants collectively to preserve their existing right. --Hauskalainen (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You also claim that Malcolm talks of "permissible self defense". I see no such reference on the pages you say or the pages around that and neither did a google books even find the word permissible within the book. On the contrary, on page 23 it says "The governments most urgent tasks, the restoration of order and the prevention of counter revolution, were exceedingly difficult because by 1649 large numbers of Englishmen posessed private weapons(by which she would have meant firearms), which they had becomes accustomed to useing as they saw fit. " This does not indicate at all that weapons at that time were held only for defense of the realm! Indeed the emptying of the royal forests of game (see the text) indicates that the use of arms for gaming was rife once the King had been executed. I really cannot accept your assertions that there was no common law right to posess arms before the Bill of Rights. Clearly there was and people did. This is also referenced in the two paragraphs at the top of page 11. There was a general right to arms, though the law did sometimes restrict certain persons the right to arms, the places where the right could not be exercised (for public safety) and at certain times, the types of arms that one could hold. But in general terms, the right to arms for self defense as well as defense of the community was well established. This right was NOT restricted to those obligated to hold arms as the text in the article as it stands currently seems to imply.--Hauskalainen (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Consider that the article primarily is about protection of the "right to keep and bear arms", and we should give that priority. Pushing emphasis to a "right to arms" is actually tangential. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 19:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

All my edits today have done is to re order the texts, move some text into the references (to avoid overbearing the main text) and to emphasise that the general right to arms (which is the same as the right to keep and bear) was an existing right (which is clear from the Malcolm texts and indeed the Blackstone commentaries). It also corrects the text which seemed to tell a misleading story... that the right began as an obligation... that is a totally misleading statement. I know that the cover of the Malcolm book may say that but it is wrong. The right to bear arms was a right in natural law (and common law) in order to preserve the right of self preservation. It goes back way before the days of firearms and later efforts to control firearms (and longbows for that matter). My edits thus establish historical accuracy against a presumed desire by some editors to assume that this is a "right" that developed slowly and flowered in the English Bill of Rights and thence into the United States Constitution. That, frankly, is a complete misreading of history. The truth is that the right was there first, then it got tampered with by King and Parliament and then, due to a moment in history, got put into legislation which, in English law was non binding on future parliaments (despite the wording to the contrary) and, despite the Bill of Rights being an important constitutional document, that part of it which relates to a Right to Keep an Bear Arms has absolutely no constitutional validity today. I believe this is said somewhere else in the article. Maybne this needs to be put together with this text. It would make sense to do so.--Hauskalainen (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Ummm, your latest revert[6] did nothing but put some vandalism back into this article. Slow down and think before you edit war. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 21:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Hauskalainen, it might be helpful at this point for you to be specific about what sourcing you base your claim that there is a common law right to arms which predates the duty to participate in militia and civil defense. We need to build this article by starting from the reliable sourcing. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

If there were no common law right to preserve one's own life then there would be no defense in law of "self-defense", because a right to self defense is not written anywhere in statute. Ergo it is a common law right. If there were no right to self defense and nobody attempted to defend themselves from assault using whatever came to hand (because it was illegal) then the consequences would be unthinkable. It is stupid of you even to argue that there is NO common law right of self defense. It has always existed and it is crazy beyond words that you should think that I would need a king's permission to arm myself in order to defend myself. --Hauskalainen (talk) 20:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The story of rulers disarming the general populace in order to 1)secure their position, or 2)make it easier to take the peoples stuff, or 3)both, is as old as man. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The argument that I must provide a reference for the common law right to keep arms for self defence is no different to asking me to provide a reference for the right that I have to keep milk in my refrigerator. There has been no law preventing me from keep milk in my refrigerator, nor is there a law preventing me from keeping an iron bar under my bed. I have a right to keep an iron bar under my bed just as much as I have a right to keep milk in my fridge. I can also walk down the street carrying milk just as freely as I can carrying an iron bar. The argument you are making is akin to saying that I have NO RIGHT to keep milk in my refrigerator because it has not been declared in some legal document (a law, a decree, or my nation's constitution). Because there is nothing in law to prevent my keeping something at home or carrying it with me does not make it illegal. The presumption is always one of legality unless some law or previous case declares it to be illegal.--Hauskalainen (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It really would be helpful if you could separate a discussion of what you personally believe from what we read in reliable sourcing. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Regarding your question about the personal liberties, keep in mind that the history behind the Second Amendment is older than the concept that people have liberty in a modern sense. The modern concept of liberty of people to have arms is generally thought to have emerged with the Enlightenment, specifically with the Glorious Revolution of 1689. Prior to that event, the modern concept of liberty didn't exist like we take for granted today. I believe that the article is attempting to give the appropriate coverage to this 1689 event. Except that I have problems with your reorganization earlier this week, because the passage discussing the Glorious Revolution is given redundant coverage, once at the beginning of the English History section, and again at the end. I preferred the previous sequencing, before your re-shuffle, which had the earlier times first and the later times later and had a more logical flow. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 22:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Would you assert that you had a right to keep ice cream in your refrigerator? I think you would. But can you provide a reference for that? Of course not! The very idea is ridiculous. We are not discussing my opinions but facts. Here is another. Many Americans I have come across seem to think that their "liberties" come from their constitution and that people in other countries do not have these "precious liberties". This is faintly ridiculous but I have heard it said so often that I think they really believe it to be true. The law in any country may restrict your liberties but nobody can grant you a liberty unless it has been previously been restricted. When Blackstone talks of "the natural right of resistance and self-preservation" he talking about the same thing that I am talking of. The natural right of resistance and self preservation is that which any human being would assert was a right if their life and liberty was in danger and which the courts have allowed as a defense in cases where extreme violence has been used to offset extreme violence in the other direction. If I am wrong here, what else could this refer to? It is clear that the reason parliament (in haste I might add) wrote elements that were very bad law (which parts of the Bill of Rights is, and so too the laws of succession of 1701) was because they lived in fear that their (existing) liberties might be taken away. The argument about positive rights has raged in England for a long time. The advantage of defining these rights in law is not that it grants a new right that did not previously exist but that it aims to prevent those things that we think of as rights from being taken away (such as the right to free speech, the right of assembly, and even the right to keep and bear arms. This was what the protestants feared. It does not mean that there was no right to free speech or free assembly etc. before these rights got written into law. That is the issue and it is why people had a right to keep and bear arms long before anyone legislated on the matter. The simple truth is that all rights have to be balanced. In England I have a right to free speech but others have a right not be verbally abused because of their race, religion, or sexuality. These rights conflict. Similarly you in America have a right to keep and bear arms, but it is severely constrained by other laws. One right does not outweigh all the other. They have to be balanced. --Hauskalainen (talk) 23:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

We I understood your analogy about milk in the refrigerator the first time, no need to repeat it again. What is missing is that you are not giving the sources for your idea, as required by policy around here. Read about that policy here: WP:SOURCES, thanks. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 13:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

We??? I don't think you did understand, because the purpose of the analogy is to show why it is unreasonable to expect me to find a source for the right to bear arms pre-dating any legislation in the area for the same reason that you would be unable find any references for the right I have to keep milk in my fridge. I have the right to keep milk in my fridge because there is no law to prevent it. So it was with bearing arms in ancient times. It is simply wrong for the article to imply as it did/does that there was no right (to have and use arms) before the Bill of Rights (in England) or indeed before the Second Amendment in the United States. The obligation is I think on the other foot. If there was a time when that liberty was lost, then it is for you to show that THAT happened. We already have reference to the specific case of hunting but the text in the article seemed to imply that there was no liberty before this time. For that to be so you would have to demonstrate when that happened (and how) from a reliable source. --Hauskalainen (talk) 23:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I am only speaking for myself. I still have no comment on your personal opinion. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 01:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not opinion but the application of logic. If it helps yo,u think about positive and negative rights. The creation of an explicit right in law was an intention to create a so called negative right (the right NOT to be disarmed). I am no expert in US constitutional history but I am prepared to fight for the correct statement of English history. You can opine to your heart's content as to whether or not that was a reasonable thing. The English and American laws actually diverged rather than converged with the passing of the Second Amendment because until then there was a general liberty to keep and bear arms to defend oneself, one's family, and one's country (with a few exceptions), a liberty very important when there were no forces there to keep the peace. The departure came because (despite attempts in the wording to the contrary) parliament in England can simply overturn the English Bill of Rights (though it may not have done so) whereas Congress alone cannot do so. Indeed a supermajority is needed to do so. Furthermore judges in England can and do re-interpret the law irrespective of what is written in legislation. It is highly unlikely that a Catholic these days would be denied the right to a defense of a general right to arms for example. English judges will, when seeking an equitable decision, look at recent legislation on equality, human rights, and dangerous weapons such as guns, knives, and nuclear or biological materials and the role of the police in civil society when interpreting any claimed rights. I am not sure, but I suspect that lawyers in the U.S. would be looking primarily at previous constitutional law decisions which are much more difficult to overturn than any similar situation in English law. Two very different outcomes from similar wording placed in different contxts.--Hauskalainen (talk) 02:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Heller historians brief

Since what to me was a simple deletion of poor material has now turned into a pissing match, I thought I'd share some comments in the historians brief which I ran across.

see http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290tsajackn.rakove.pdf pages 11 and 12 for verification

The historians comment in that brief, that Pennsylvania had no militia for two decades prior to the Revolution due to "Quaker influence" and that even following a petition from "frontier counties" during the Seven Years War and Pontiac's rising of 1763, the colonial government failed to set up an organized militia. Again in 1776 Pennsylvania failed to call up an organized militia.

The historians point of view is that the Second Amendment is based on a state authorization to have arms so that one can serve in the militia. That viewpoint is incompatible with Pennsylvania's refusal to have an organized militia, even during wartime.96.237.120.38 (talk) 17:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Added material showing Pennsylvania had no militia and refused to organize one, based on comments in historians brief.96.237.120.38 (talk) 14:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

New material

The addition of the two new sentences by AnonIP to the "meaning of bear arms" section have created new ambiguity. The first part discussed a Tench Coxe editorial in a newspaper which used the phrase "keep and bear their private arms", which has been adopted by individual rights proponents as having meaning in support of their point of view. The second part addresses the so-called minority report passage, with includes the ambiguous wording "for killing game" found in an anonymous pamphlet distributed after the Pennsylvanian convention. These are two distinct and separate incidents. But, the two added sentences (the Orin Hatches musings and the Antonin Scalia's incidental remark) only pertain to the 'for killing game' pamphlet and not the Tench Coxe editorial. The wording of the article is now ambiguous, falsely implying that Orin Hatch and Antonin Scalia also think the Tench Coxe editorial was important, when there is no evidence that is true.

And, civility on the talk page has been poisoned with acrimony, is there a way we can cooperate to fix this mess? SaltyBoatr ^getwet 20:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I made minor changes to clarify what is being referenced in the new material. Do you have additional complaints?

BTW: I did notice you attempt to downgrade an important historical document to the status of "anonymous pamphlet", a US Senate report to the status of "the musings of Orin Hatch, and Scalias opinion supported by the 4 other Supreme Court Justices signing off on the opinion, to a mere "incidental remark". 96.237.120.38 (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I looked up the reference to killing game and the complete comment is as follows. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game. In case you unfamiliar with the term "to bear", it means "to hold or carry". I find it perfectly understandable that ones needs "to hold" a gun in order to use it while hunting (killing game). I have trouble with the concept of going hunting by putting a gun down on the ground and expecting it to load, aim and fire itself. Even worse is the concept of going hunting by leaving a gun in a government controlled armory, where in addition to the above 3 issues, it also has to fire through the walls of the armory. Are you still confused?96.237.120.38 (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Having had my faith in you drop, drop again and then drop even more, I decided to do a bit of further checking. The Democrat and ranking minority member of the subcommittee had this to say about the report. He refers to it as excellent, fair and thorough and not the musings of Orin Hatch as you seem to believe. Unless the musings of Orin Hatch are excellent, fair and thorough.

http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html#h1-18

The Constitution subcommittee staff has prepared this monograph bringing together proponents of both sides of the debate over the 1968 Act. I believe that the statements contained herein present the arguments fairly and thoroughly. I commend Senator Hatch, chairman of the subcommittee, for having this excellent reference work prepared. I am sure that it will be of great assistance to the Congress as it debates the second amendment and considers legislation to amend the Gun Control Act.

Dennis Deconcini,

Ranking Minority Member,

Subcommittee On the Constitution.96.237.120.38 (talk) 22:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Dennis Deconcini is referring to the original version of the report, not this version of the report you have seen which was abridged. Also, I understand your personal belief that to bear means to hold and carry. Yet, with an open mind we also must see that others consider the term "keep and bear" as a conjunctive[7][8] which implies a military context. We must edit this article to respect both points of view. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 01:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

There is only one version of the report. Are you stating that Deconcini did not sign off on that statement, which is a part of the report itself? As to whether or not my belief on whether "to bear" means "to hold or carry" is correct, I direct you to Websters dictionary. If you want to push the thought that Websters dictionary is in error, then your already low credibility will get even lower.96.237.120.38 (talk) 20:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

What definition does your version of Websters give for "bear arms"? Most modern abridged dictionaries like those published by Merriam-Webster don't define all the historical usages of words in the English Language including the Eighteenth Century two word term: "bear arms". Take a look at a true unabridged historical dictionary like the Oxford English Dictionary for the 1789 definition of the meaning of "bear arms", see the entry arm, n.2 4.c. in The Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. 1989. You might need to go to a library to find this. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 21:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Look at the "Contents" listing at the top of the report. There were also statements at the hearings giving "Other Views of the second amendment" from: 1) David J. Steinberg of the National Council for a Responsible Firearms Policy. 2) Michael K. Beard, Samuel S. Fields, of the National Coalition to Ban Handguns and 3) The Association of the Bar of the city of New York. My guess is that these three items of 'gun control' balancing testimony were trimmed out from the version of the report posted on Constitution.org and Guncite.org because of their "gun rights" advocacy agenda. Interestingly, the report version posted at Constitution.org at least has the honesty to mention at the bottom that "[Other sections omitted.]"[9]. The Guncite version trims out that disclosure that "other sections are omitted". This sourcing fails WP:V policy I think. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 20:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Read the Supreme Courts opinion of that phrase, already in the article, and as an editor, something you should already be familiar with

A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some courses on Linguistics). If “bear arms” means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage (“for the purpose of self-defense” or “to make war against the King”). But if “bear arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game” is worthy of the mad hatter 96.237.120.38 (talk) 01:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

And, stating the obvious, the killing of game purpose was not put into this Second Amendment. Though the first half of the Second Amendment does mention an explicit purpose, a well regulated militia. Our job is to fairly represent all significant viewpoints, and in this case the mystery of why "killing game" was mentioned in one rogue pamphlet begs explanation because it stands out as a rare exception among hundreds of other usages of "bear arms" consistently in military contexts. Here is one detailed study[10] worth reading. There are various significant explanations found, one is that modern gun rights proponents have scoured the 18th century written record looking for material to bolster their case. They found this run-on sentence and like it because it is helpful to an individual rights modern political argument. Another reliably sourced explanation, published by Duke University Press, was that the rambling "killing game" sentence which blurs military and non-military uses was composed in haste by an eccentric person. Yet, this quote was removed[11] by SMP0328 and I think the article suffers from that deletion. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 16:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Your issue was with what "to bear" meant. The US Supreme provided the answer. On the meaning of laws, there is no more significant viewpoint. In case you are unaware of it, the Supreme Court has ruled that plain everyday meaning of the law, is the law.96.237.120.38 (talk) 13:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

And speaking of significant viewpoints are you aware that in the historians brief, Rakove and the other historians admitted that Pennsylvania, even during wartime refused to set up an organized militia? How they can say that the right to arms is militia based, when Pennsylvania had no militia and refused, even in wartime, to create one is a puzzlement.13:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI: I again noticed you downgrading an important historical document to the status of "a rogue pamphlet". 96.237.120.38 (talk) 13:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, not me personally. I am just reflecting what I read in the sources. Specifically, the U&M analysis of that pamphlet published by Duke University Press. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 19:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Your impartiality is legendary. Why not ignore the US Supreme Court, the US Senate, a leading Pennsylvania politician, in order to side with a some two bit historians. I can fully understand your reasoning.

BTW: I notice you changed the text of the article to say the right of English protestants to arms is purely defensive. Why not add the fact that they were defending themselves from an abusive monarch.96.237.120.38 (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

English history section needs some work

There is a partial sentence backed up by citation #9 and most of the rest reads badly, probably due to numerous edits that resulted in that partial sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.120.38 (talk) 14:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

After moving the partial sentence above, and some back and forth between myself and other editors on other sections of a certain paragraph, which IMO ended up looking even worse after the edits then before, I re-edited the paragraph to cover all the major points. Not to my surprise, I find the paragraph edited for what I believe is the worst.

Major points which I believe should be (in some manner) included. Below is for discussion

1) Prior to 1689, the right to arms was not a "protected" legal right, and that the 1689 English Bill of Rights made it a protected right, and even after that Bill was passed that right was of limited nature and even then only applied to protestants. Common law rights are not protected rights since common law is "unwritten" law.

(inserted comment by Hauskalainen ... I don't accept the Bill of Rights of 1689 in practice changed anything. People had a right to arms generally before its passing and had the same right afterwards. Parliament before and after was free to change the law at will and has done so in relation to certain classes of arms. People cannot claim that the rights in the Bill of Rights were protected in the same way as people in the U.S. have done so in respect to the Second Amendment. This is a misreading of English law and English history). --Hauskalainen (talk) 03:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

2) As to whether William and Mary gave Parliament the power to pass the bill, from my readings prior to the edit, Parliament had been dissolved prior to the Glorious Revolution, but due to the fear a being forced to turn Catholic, former members of the dissolved Parliament got together, passed a bill dethroning James II and offering the crown to William and Mary. After William and Mary took the throne they officially reinstated Parliament and the now fully official and legal Parliament passed into law the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which either resembled the bill passed by the unofficial Parliament or was the same of that bill.

Above source may be wrong, another source states that William and Mary were required to accept the bill of rights prior to their coronation. This may have been the precursor bill, or the principle of such a bill, and not the Bill of Rights itself.96.237.120.38 (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

3) I can't say I would go along with a statement that Parliament was "democratic", since that would mean nobles and clergy in Parliament were elected. Commoners in the House of Commons were elected, but what we call gerrymandering Congressional districts is a pale shadow of what went in England. One of the wiki articles I references stated that prior to a redrawing of districts in the 1800's, one district was composed of 4 people and had 2 House members, while another district was a town which had fallen into the sea. I have no objections to calling Parliament "representative" since it had members from all classes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.120.38 (talk) 14:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Your three comments above seem to reflect your personal beliefs because you do not mention your sourcing for your ideas. In order to proceed with your request for discussion, we need to be discussing what the reliable sourcing says, not discussing what individual editors believe. Please specifically tell us what is the secondary sourcing you are reading for your ideas. Give the exact page numbers, and/or exact URL's so we may read it too, thanks. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Do I need to explain that "Common law" in unwritten? i.e not legislated, but evolved through many many generations of courtroom battles? If I do, then I won't bother. Your ignorance is too deep for my limited patience. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I am ignorant about a lot of things, but I think I do understand you! Except, I am not allowed to respond to you here. The way it works is that on article talk pages like this one, we are supposed to avoid talking about personal opinion. If you would like to discuss personal opinion with me, ask your questions over on my user talk page. Ask me there, and I will answer you there. Here, on article talk pages we are supposed to limit our discussion to what the reliable secondary sourcing says about the article, and to avoid talking about personal opinion. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines for how this is supposed to work. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 19:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

As I said my limited patience makes me unable to help you. Anyone who thinks you needs two citations to a certain page of a certain book to make ONE point, such as yourself, is in need of dire help, exceeding what I can provide. I am therefore cutting my losses. And as I pointed out below, primary sources are allowed by wiki policy, as long as an "intelligent" person can see the connection. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 02:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

For the record I don't recall that you have pointed to primary sources either. (Admittedly I am not certain tracking anonymous comments.) Unless you are saying that you are pointing to "unwritten" primary sources. I don't think there is an exception in WP:V policy allowing unwritten sources, especially for contentious subjects like this. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 03:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Primary sources can be used, but only in a very narrow way. Here's wiki-policy on the matter:

Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source. Do not base articles entirely on primary sources. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, as that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material.

SMP0328. (talk) 03:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Already mentioned in the section below. Let me know if you think the following is an allowed use of a primary source. Can the descriptive statement be verified by an educated person, from the primary source cited text?

I stated that the majority protestants were afraid that James II and his catholic successors would eventually force the English to convert to Catholicism and citing the following section of the Bill of Rights Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom; .96.237.120.38 (talk) 04:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Read the policy more closely. "Any interpretation of primary source material" is disallowed. In your usage you are interpreting the majority Protestants intention. The primary source says nothing about the Protestant's intention, it just talks of what the Catholics were doing. Were Protestants "afraid"? Were Protestants seeking to avoid something James II would do? That involves your interpretation.

Fortunately, major historical events like this have plenty of excellent secondary reliable source material available. Usually it is easy to find a solid secondary source that says the exact same thing as your primary interpretation. If it isn't easy to find secondary sources confirming your ideas, maybe you need to rethink anyway. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 16:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Read the policy closely yourself. A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. Unless of course you are not an educated person.96.237.120.38 (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

A descriptive statement is different than an interpretive statement. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 21:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

and what did I interpret?96.237.120.38 (talk) 22:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

As I already said: 1) You interpreted that the Protestants were afraid. 2) You interpreted the intentions behind the Protestant Bill of Rights. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 23:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Obviously people who REVOLT are MOST JOYOUS at who they rebel against! You are so funny! If you can't tell what people are feeling after they plainly tell you, see the meaning of "extirpate" (definition in following section) below, then as I said before, it is well beyond my limited patience to EDUCATE YOU to see what is before your face. I suggest you enroll in a community college. Start with basket weaving 101.96.237.120.38 (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

-Hauskalainen - use of primary documents

A few days ago you deleted some cites that referenced text from the English Bill of Rights (a primary document). I could not understand why wiki would ban the use of such documents, and from the policy page below, their use is not banned, just restricted

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources

Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source. Do not base articles entirely on primary sources. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, as that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material.

I believe my use of the English Bill of rights as a reference is allowed as I used it to support descriptive statement that an educated person can verify A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge

I stated that the majority protestants were afraid that James II and his catholic successors would eventually force the English to convert to Catholicism and citing the following section of the Bill of Rights Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom; .

While the word "extirpate" isn't much in use anymore, I hope that what passes for an educated person these days, either already knows that meaning, can infer what it means, or at worst can look it up in a dictionary.

one online dictionary gives the following meanings

1 a : to destroy completely : wipe out b  : to pull up by the root 2 : to cut out by surgery synonyms see exterminate96.237.120.38 (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Links in footnotes are messed up

Anyone know why so many of the links in the footnotes are messed up? Isn't the proper format [URL text]?Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably old age. I tried one myself that looked like interesting reading, but it was a dead link. Sites come and go, they change their names, remove or move material, etc.96.237.120.38 (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

There was one mismatched square bracket in one of the ref's which caused the other refs to show their square brackets. I just fixed it I think. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 17:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Good work, thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Open for discussion of recent edits

AnonIP recently reverted[12] without explanation several recent well sourced edits which seem to be improvements to the article. Opening this new section in order to discuss any objections. This is preferable to making unexplained wholesale reverts. Thanks. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 01:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The material already in the article on the meaning of well regulated seem fine and even includes a cite to the US Supremes. 96.237.120.38 (talk)

I see that AnonIP has deleted[13] that there are multiple views as to the meaning of the Blackstone quotation. Did you read the paper[14] by Stephen Heyman, footnote 15? In it he states bluntly that there are multiple views among scholars about the meaning of this Blackstone quotation. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 01:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Your changes did not match the cites. I changed the material to reflect the cites.96.237.120.38 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC).

Beating a dead horse - This is the Heyman cite appearing in the article "Heyman, Stephen (2000). "Natural Rights and the Second Amendment". Chicago-Kent Law Review (Chicago-Kent College of Law) 76 (237): 253-259. http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=steven_heyman. "Finally, we should note that (contrary to Kates's assertion) Blackstone nowhere suggests that the right to arms derives from "the common law." Instead, this is a right that is secured by "the constitution," and in particular by the Bill of Rights."

If you wish to continue this discussion, I can probably skin the horse, make dog food out of its flesh, grind its bones for calcium, render its fat for oil, and boil its hooves for glue.96.237.120.38 (talk) 02:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, I see that AnonIP has made a wholesale revert[15] without discussion again. Can we talk this without silently edit warring? Thanks. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 01:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I restored well referenced material that you deleted that was already in the article. What about getting consensus to remove it? 96.237.120.38 (talk) 01:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you deleted rather than restored references. And, the references you removed were of very high quality from scholarly law review articles. Please explain your reasoning for these deletions. Thanks. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 01:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

You deleted the original material and replaced it, I restored the original material, you then deleted it again, I then again restored it. If you want to add additional material you are free to do so. Just make sure it is well referenced.

I thought you were all about "consensus"? or are you all about "consensus" only when it suits you?96.237.120.38 (talk) 01:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Could we instead discuss the article? This revert[16] of yours was unexplained. Could you please explain the reasoning behind your revert? Thanks. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 02:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there some part of "I restored material which you had removed" that is difficult for you to understand? If so, then run to that community college and start with the BASIC basket weaving class.96.237.120.38 (talk) 04:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

You deleted[17] the entire paragraph with the reference to the Lewis and Clark Law Review article by William Merkel, explain please. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 05:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I said above, if you want to add new material, you are free to do so, as long as it contains backing citations. Material already in the article, which as you previously pointed out, is there based on editorial "consensus", should be left alone.96.237.120.38 (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Trying to move this forward, AnonIP deleted the paragraph with footnote 125.  :

Version prior to AnonIP edit:

Meaning of "well regulated militia"

The meaning of the term "well regulated" in the Second Amendment has been interpreted two ways: One interpretation is a usage of the term "regulated" to mean "disciplined" or "trained".[124]

Another interpretation of "well regulated" is that in the eighteenth century the term regulated meant subject to rules and regulations, the same as the modern meaning, and that it did not mean trained.[125]

On what constitutes a well regulated militia, Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 29: "The power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.[45]"

Version after AnonIP edit

Meaning of "well regulated militia"

The term "well regulated" in the Second Amendment has been interpreted as a usage of the term "regulated" to mean "disciplined" or "trained".[124]

On what constitutes a well regulated militia, Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 29: "If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security....A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.[45]"

There are a couple issues here. 1) Per reliable sourcing there are two interpretations of "well regulated", we should be describing both. And, 2) The selective quotation from Alexander Hamilton, with the ellipsis (...) amounts to improper synthesis of a primary document in attempt to bolster one of the interpretations.

That footnote 125 points to a paper in the Lewis and Clark Law Review. Could other editors, if they haven't already, please take a moment and read the paper[18], especially page 361, so we can discuss the relevance and reliability? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 13:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

A blind man can see that the quote you state I deleted was ALREADY in the article, and with my restoration, is still in the article. If that community college has Basic basket weaving for the blind, I recommend that course as the starting point for your education.96.237.120.38 (talk) 14:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

No. You deleted the paragraph starting with the words "Another interpretation of 'well regulated' is...". That paragraph was sourced to the article in the Lewis and Clark Law Review. I know your opinion that I should take a basket weaving class, you have said this many times. Instead, can we please discuss the article? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 14:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want to add new material, do so as long as it is cited. Do not delete old material while you are doing so, included by "consensus" that contradicts your new material. see POV push.96.237.120.38 (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

This "old material" you speak of is that quote from Federalist #29, a primary document. That quote seems contrived to make a case that Alexander Hamilton was saying that "well regulated" means "trained". It achieves this by conjugating two sentences together with an ellipsis. When I checked the source I see that there are a 641 words omitted by that ellipsis. This is an excessive distortion of a primary source and violates WP:SYN policy. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 00:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

click here to view the words from the primary source omitted with the ellipsis

If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the same body, ought, as far as possible to take away the inducement and the pretext, to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies, which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter'. To render an army unnecessary, will be a more certain method of preventing its existence, than a thousand prohibitions upon paper. In order to cast an odium upon the power of calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, it has been remarked, that there is nowhere any provision in the proposed constitution for requiring the aid of the Posse Comitatcs, to assist the magistrate in the execution of his duty; whence it has been inferred, that military force was intended to be his only auxiliary. There is a striking incoherence in the objections which have appeared, arid sometimes even from the same quarter, not much calculated to inspire a very favorable opinion of the sincerity or fair dealing of their authors. The same persons, who tell us in one breath, that the powers of the federal government will be despotic and unlimited, inform us in the next, that it has not authority sufficient even to call out the Posse Comitatus. The latter, fortunately, is as much short of the truth as the former exceeds it. It would be as absurd to doubt, that a right to pass all laws necessary and proper to execute its declared powers, would include that of requiring the assistance of the citizens to the officers who may be entrusted with the execution of those laws; as it would be to believe, that a right to enact laws necessary and proper for the imposition and collection of taxes, would involve that of varying the rules of descent and of the alienation of lauded property, or of abolishing the trial by jury in cases relating to it. It being therefore evident, that the supposition of a want of power to require the aid of the Posse Comitatus is entirely destitute of color, it will follow, that the conclusion which has been drawn from it, in its application to the authority of the federal government over the militia, is as uncaudid as it is illogical. What reason could there be to infer, that force was intended to be the sole instrument of authority, merely be cause there is a power to make use of it when necessary ? What shall we think of the motives, which could induce men of sense to reason in this extraordinary manner ? How shall we prevent a conflict between charity and conviction ? By a curious refinement upon the spirit of republican jealousy, we are even taught to apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of the federal government. It is observed, that select corps may be formed, composed of the young and the ardent, who may be rendered subservient to the views of arbitrary power. What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government, is impossible to be foreseen. But so far from viewing the matter in the same light with those who object to select corps as dangerous, were the constitution ratified, and were I to deliver my seutiments to a member of the federal legislature on the subject of a militia establishment, I should hold to him in substance the following discourse : "The project of disciplining all the militia of the United " States. is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable " of being carried into execution.

OK then. This is my proposal, all fully sourced.

===Meaning of "well regulated militia"===

The meaning of the term "well regulated" in the Second Amendment has been interpreted two ways:

One interpretation is a usage of the term "regulated" to mean "disciplined" or "trained".<ref>As noted by the U.S. Supreme Court in ''[[District of Columbia v. Heller]]'', "[T]he adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training." ''Heller'', majority opinion of the Court, Part II-A-2</ref>

Another interpretation of "well regulated" is that in the eighteenth century the term regulated meant subject to rules and regulations, the same as the modern meaning, and that it did not mean trained.<ref name="Merkel361" >{{cite journal|last1=Merkel|first1=William|year=2009|title=Heller and Scalia's Originalism|journal=Lewis and Clark Law Review|volume=13|issue=2|pages=361|url=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID1422048_code695147.pdf?abstractid=1422048&mirid=5|date=Summer 2009|quote=Well-regulated meant well trained, rather than subject to rules and regulations. (A quick look at the Oxford English Dictionary reveals that, rather unsurprisingly and contra Malcolm, in the eighteenth century, regulated actually meant regulated, much as it does today. It did not mean trained.)}}</ref>

On what constitutes a well regulated militia, Alexander Hamilton wrote in [[Federalist No. 29]]:{{quote|The power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.<ref name="Fed29">Hamilton, Alexander. [http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed29.htm Federalist No. 29, "Concerning the Militia"]</ref>}}

Comments please, I will be inserting this shortly. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 00:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I recommend you wait until 24 hours have passed. If the anon doesn't respond within that time, or he agrees to your proposal, then place it into the article. Waiting will prevent your adding it, followed by his reverting that addition. SMP0328. (talk) 00:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I can wait until tomorrow, though AnonIP has recently said twice that his invites sourced additions saying just above "you are free to do so". SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 01:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The proposed edit deleted the portion of Hamilton quote that describes what a "well regulated" militia is, as well as a reference showing that the Supreme Court seconds, or accepts that meaning. In other words the "accepted" meaning would be deleted from the article in favor of a meaning pushed by a small number of modern historians. I won't object if SB adds material pushing that small minority opinion, but I object to replacing the accepted meaning showing in the article, with that minority opinion. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 12:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

A second proposed edit: This involves the selective quote from Blackstone in the "English History" section. Firstly, understanding legal treatises is hard enough, let alone the difficulty of understanding the ones written in archaic English from 1765. This seems a violation of the primary source limitation that the usage must be understandable by normally educated people. Plainly, a practical understanding of Blackstone is limited to a few of the most expert legal historians. The easiest fix is probably to simply remove the Blackstone quote entirely. If we choose to leave it in, alternately we should shift from using the primary document and instead be using reliable secondary sourcing. I was researching this and found two papers by distinguished professors in academic journals. Take the time please and read these two; 1) Heyman, Stephen (2000).[19] "Natural Rights and the Second Amendment". Chicago-Kent Law Review (Chicago-Kent College of Law) 76 (237): 253-259. and 2) Levinson, Sanford (2009).[20] "For whom is the Heller decision important and why?". Lewis and Clark Law Review 13 (2): 315-347. Both these describe how Blackstone uses a different meaning for "natural right" when speaking of the right to have arms, and that it is more accurately called "a subordinate auxiliary right". In short, my second proposal is to remove the interpretive wikilinks from the primary document quotation, and to add ", or a subordinate auxiliary right:" to the end of the introductory sentence. That is, unless other editors agree to just eliminate the Blackstone quote entirely because it is a problematic primary document usage. Comments please, I will be doing this shortly. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 01:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

An educated person can understand what Blackstone is saying, especially with "suitable for his condition an as allowed by law" background provided within that section of the article. I personally would like to see a few of the "suitable for his condition and as allowed by law"quotes condensed into something like "a limited right". Endlessly repeating it seems excessive. I don't support changing the direct quote however. That would be unprofessional.96.237.120.38 (talk) 12:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the Steven Heyman paper[21] in which he examines the meaning of Blackstone? If you haven't, I ask that you do. You might find it to be an interesting paper, it also covers the topic of the Pennsylvanian minority report. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 14:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Blackstone basically said that arms are the last refuse of those who want to resist oppression. Please explain to me how the disarming of the general population, by the government, allows them to resist that government oppression through force of arms. Partial quote from Blackstone: "when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."96.237.120.38 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC).

Blackstone seems pretty clear, why do I need an interpreter? http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s5.html

Review WP:NOR policy, if you want to edit, we need to be using secondary sources. The issue here is that "natural right" as described by Blackstone was a complex concept and the use of the wikilink you inserted[22] is prohibited interpretation. This is explained in the Heyman paper, did you read the Steven Heyman paper? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 19:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

And, lastly, to vindicate these rights, when actually violated or attacked, the subjects of England are entitled, in the first place, to the regular administration and free course of justice in the courts of law; next to the right of petitioning the king and parliament for redress of grievances; and lastly to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.120.38 (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I also have a proposed edit. In a previous section of this talk page I pointed out that in the historians brief, those historians admitted that the Pennsylvania refused, due to Quaker influence, to create an organized militia, even after petitions during wartime. If Pennsylvania did not have a militia, and refused to create one, how can the right to keep and bear arms be militia based? 96.237.120.38 (talk) 12:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

A well regulated mansion? controlled by umpteen laws? I think not!

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/washington.htm

Custis was nineteen at the time of Washington's death. He describes the scene:

Mrs. Washington retired about the usual family hour, but becoming alarmed at not hearing the accustomed sound of the library door as it closed for the night, and gave signal for rest in the well-regulated mansion, she rose again, and continued sitting up, in much anxiety and suspense. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 13:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I accept the definition that "well regulated" means trained, because I see that reliable secondary sources say it. I also see that other reliable sources say that "well regulated" uses the word "regulated" to mean "regulated" in a modern sense. Per policy here we are to include all the significant points of views which we find in reliable sourcing. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 13:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

and now that "small minority" opinion, limited to a few historians and the people that they have deluded, is included in the article.96.237.120.38 (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that the Heller ruling has not allowed for umpteen gun requlations? Heller spoke loud and clear that nearly every gun regulation (short of a handgun at home for self-defense) is going forward deemed Constitutional, see SCOTUSblog "Heller: “…nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons… ... would have been better served if the regulations Heller addressed in dicta had been ..."]. Who knows if regulated means regulated, or trained, or both. I see it described both ways in the opinion of Antonin Scalia. Clear as mud, and the article should fairly indicate that regulated in the 2A can be read two ways. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 19:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I am saying that the "small minority" opinion that well regulate means festooned with laws and regulations is now in article.

George Washington, August 25, 1776 letter to Israel Putnam.

The distinction between a well regulated Army, and a Mob, is the good order and discipline of the first, and the licentious and disorderly behaviour of the latter96.237.120.38 (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Did Washington advise a commander to get well-law'd troops to reinforce his fortifications (works), or well-trained ones?

I am unacquainted with the extent of your works, and consequently ignorant of the number or men necessary to man them. If your present numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the best regulated militia that can be got. George Washington (The Writings of George Washington, pp. 503-4, (G.P. Putnam & Sons, pub.)(1889)) 96.237.120.38 (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

SB - your enlargement of Hamiltons quote is not appropriate to the article

As it stands, it is "to the point". Your addition buries the relevant quotation in irrelevant material.

If I did not know better, I would say that having failed to get that quote removed, you are now trying to bury it in irrelevant material.96.237.120.38 (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant material? Say's who? The trouble with the version of the text you prefer is that it involves selective quotations, taken out of context, and misleadingly cobbled together with an ellipsis which distort the meaning and contrives it to mean something which you wish it meant. This is a textbook case of editor synthesis of primary documents. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 14:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If you dislike the ellipses I have no objection to removing the first portion of the quote. It has nothing to do with what well-regulated means and is Hamilton pushing his agenda of more federal control of the militia.

Hamilton however, accurately describes what the Founders meant by a well-regulated militia. The US Supreme Court seconds that interpretation. If you don't like that interpretation because it goes against your agenda, I can't say I feel sorry.96.237.120.38 (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You wrote "is Hamilton pushing his agenda of more federal control of the militia". In other words: "is Hamilton pushing his agenda of more federal regulation of the militia". Selective quotations from Hamilton can be made to show him where regulation means regulation. Except that you don't want to do that, or do you? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The militia is a state body. Hamilton was in favor of moving control of the militia to the federal government at the expense of the states. Your points also have nothing to do with what "well-regulated" means. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, you write "control", and control is a synonym for regulation. Hamilton supported federal regulation of the militia using the literal meaning of the word. Your selective quotation of a primary document is contrived to hide this and is a policy violation. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Your points again have nothing to do with what the phrase "well-regulated" means.

Was this you who wrote this yesterday, I accept the definition that "well regulated" means trained, because I see that reliable secondary sources say it. I also see that other reliable sources say that "well regulated" uses the word "regulated" to mean "regulated" in a modern sense. Per policy here we are to include all the significant points of views which we find in reliable sourcing. SaltyBoatr get wet 13:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

My condolences if you suffer from a memory disorder.96.237.120.38 (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The WP:RS use the term in various ways. If we are going to quote from Federalist #29 is makes more sense to quote the opening sentence[23] which seems to better summarizes the point he is trying to make and uses "regulation" to mean "commanding its services". Instead, you want to pick out a portion of one sentence down in the middle, distorted to change Hamilton meaning to match your own. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Was this you who wrote this yesterday, I accept the definition that "well regulated" means trained, because I see that reliable secondary sources say it. I also see that other reliable sources say that "well regulated" uses the word "regulated" to mean "regulated" in a modern sense. Per policy here we are to include all the significant points of views which we find in reliable sourcing. SaltyBoatr get wet 13:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

If not then either someone has high jacked your account, or you are engaged in puppetry of one sort or another. 96.237.120.38 (talk) 15:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I just highlighted in yellow the second half of what I wrote. My point is that there are two significant opinions here seen reliable sourcing. Not just the one opinion which you are trying to emphasize using an out of context quote from Hamilton. We must give fair coverage to both opinions, even if we don't personally agree with the opinions. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 16:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That section of the article deals with the phrase "well regulated", and not with the word "regulated". If you can find a another quote by Hamilton (or another Founding Father for that mater that shows the phrase "well regulated" means "festooned with laws", "limited by law", "regulated by law", "governed by law" or something similar, I have no objection to you including it in part 2 of that section. Otherwise please cease and desist in pushing you POV agenda to the detriment of the article.96.237.120.38 (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Federalist #29 says" "confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority"...."reserving to the states"..."the authority of training the militia". Plainly, Hamilton meant "training" when he wrote training, and he used the word "regulation" when he meant control. So, if Hamilton said "regulated" when he meant "training", then what does he mean when he wrote "of training"? My point is that it is dangerous to use snippets of primary documents when we write an encyclopedia. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 17:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

And what did he mean when he said that PRACTICING (going through) "military exercises and evolutions, AS OFTEN AS MIGHT BE NECESSARY" is what gives a militia the character of a "well-regulated" militia?

A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.120.38 (talk) 19:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You asked me a question: "What did he mean?". My answer is: That would involve interpretation of what he said!

Per wiki it only requires that you be educated without any special knowledge. So sad!96.237.120.38 (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If you check the historical usage of the term "well regulated" in the English Language, it is documented by the Oxford English Dictionary as having usage between 1709-1894, with no recorded usages in the last century. It is an antiquated English term, fallen out of use in modern English. Very few people are educated in the use of disused historical English terms like this. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 20:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

When I read Hamilton he writes suggestive that regulation = training in one place and that regulation <> training in another place. That is why we are required here at Wikipedia not do interpretations of primary documents. We should delete that selective Hamiliton quote because it is interpretive, selectively chosen to push one favorite POV. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 19:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

One minute you spout "all views must be shown" to get a minority view you support included, the next minute you want the majority view that you don't like deleted. Classic case of POV push.96.237.120.38 (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you have the "majority" "minority" reversed as to common viewpoints. Most everyone thinks "regulated" means "regulated", this is especially true when you look to historical language authority, like the Oxford English Dictionary. This is true both for their historical usage of "regulated" and for the OED record of historical usages of two-word term "well-regulated". If you get a chance, look it up in the OED and you can confirm this. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 20:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

At least 5 of 9 US Supreme Court justices think that it means "trained"96.237.120.38 (talk) 21:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

How do you know? It appears that you are selectively reading and interpreting primary documents again. (see next section) SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 22:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I know because the majority opinion for Heller was signed of by 5 of 9 US Supreme Court justices. BTW: That BASIC basket weaving for the blind class looks a bit too advanced for you. I now recommend the one where you learn to make mud pies.96.237.120.38 (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Credibility of Heller per WP:V

When I read reliable secondary sourcing which has studied the Heller ruling I see that it is described as "an act of (self?)-deception or conscious fraud", "a hollow sham"[24], "patently erroneous"[25], "simply foolish"[26] and "rife with absolutist rhetoric"[27] by a string of well known and leading experts in constitutional history. This is not blog-o-sphere criticism. It comes from articles in Law Reviews & Law Journals published by major Universities. The response has been scathing dismissal of Heller as being self-absorbed "law office history"[28]. Considering the amount academic criticism of this ruling, WP:REDFLAG comes up, to be prudent we probably should take it with a grain of salt. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 22:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

and I am sure that I can call you any number of things, such as fair, evenhanded, a credit to his nation, beloved by all who know him, etc etc etc, but calling you that does not necessarily make it true.96.237.120.38 (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)